What single change would best improve government?

[Martini_Enfield]

You make some valid points, Noel. I probably should have been a bit clearer and clarified that my plan for direct election of the Premier or PM would only be open to candidates of the current Majority Party (ie, if the Labour party as the Majority in the Queensland Parliament, then Lawrence Springborg can’t try and run for direct election as Premier).

The Labour Party would put forward a list of “Acceptable Candidates”- ie, Party members they’d be happy with as Party Leader (and hence Premier), and then everyone in the State would vote to decide who got the job. Same thing at Commonwealth level- the New Leader (and thus the Prime Minister) would be directly elected from the party with the current majority in Parliament. That way, you (in theory) get a leader with the confidence of Parliament, but also with an increased degree of legitimacy in the eyes of the public.

On a slightly related topic, the politicisation of city councils displeases me. Their job is to run the city, not curry favour with politicians in the Legislative Assembly.

I’m also in favour of “None Of The Above” as a Candidate in all elections. If a majority of voters select “None Of The Above”, then it’s time for a new election in that seat with entirely different candidates. This would be especially viable here in Australia, where voting is compulsory.

The last State Election, I was looking at the ballot paper thinking “Wanker, Wanker, Never heard of you, Tree-Hugging Greenie Hippie, Incumbent who hasn’t done anything to annoy me, but hasn’t done much of anything as far as I can tell.” In other words, I didn’t particularly want to vote for any of them, but ended up casting a vote for the least offensive candidate anyway. Had “None of the above” been an option on the ballot, that’s what I would have chosen, and from talking to people afterwards, a lot of them felt the same way.

[Noel_Prosequi]

Thanks, Martini for the clarification. It improves your idea, but I remain to be convinced.
Bear in mind that in your system, if the popularly elected person has to come from the party in government, then in reality ordinay processes of party discipline would result in the party in government choosing its candidate in advance of the election and only putting forward one candidate, or at best one real candidate and a gestural candidate with no chance of winning. This is to avoid the disunity of people within the same party genuinely competing with each other, badmouthing each other, etc. Your modified system will always result in exactly the same outcome as would arise under the present system, but with the expense and delay of a public election. But let’s leave that aside and see what other issues emerge.
When you directly elect a leader (as in the US), the leader gets to appoint a Cabinet, and can replace them at will (subject only to a political cost). Under your proposed system, even if the leader got to appoint their own Cabinet, the Cabinet would still have to come from a pool of people not necessarily of the Leader’s choosing. Your deceptively simple system now has the further complication of probably having to create rules for how Cabinet is appointed. At the moment, individual parties in government use different methods depending on their party rules.

Suppose you have the system just as we have now in most respects, except that when the Premier resigns there is a popular election for his replacement. What happens in Cabinet thereafter? Darwinian processes kick in. Group dynamics elevate the “natural” leader (who would have been elected by the Cabinet in the current system) to a position of prominence, in competition with the elected leader, who may only have got the job because he is the slimiest self-promoter, or has the most telegenic haircut, or whatever. What can a popularly elected leader do if Cabinet does not want him, undermines him at every turn, and votes him down on everything?

Cabinet has to work together intimately, and they have to have confidence in their leader. Of course they are all grown-ups and could (probably) cobble up a modus vivendi even if the leader is not their optimal choice, but the risk of instability is the problem.

In the present system, Cabinet kicks the leader out if he is not performing. They are very fine-tuned to public opinion so it ought not be thought that the appointment of a leader will be capriciously contrary to the public’s wishes. And this process if very flexible and quick.
In your proposed system, what happens if the popularly elected leader is a dud (either because he loses the confidence of Cabinet or Parliament)? Parliament cannot just replace him, otherwise they could do it the moment he came into office making the popular election pointless. What then is required is a system of recall (such as was used against Governor Gray in California prior to Gov. Schwarzenegger’s term). This is cumbersome and protracted. Again, a deceptively simple idea breeds unforseen complications.

I well understand why it might seem attractive to have arrangements for a popularly elected leader somehow fitted within our present system. For mine, though, the sense of satisfaction derived from having a direct say in the leader is illusory. Governments do not keep leaders for long who are albatrosses around their necks in the public eye. Look at all the recent NSW Premiers. Parties vote in as leaders the people who can win them elections, that is, the leaders the public wants.

In short, I can’t see a satisfactory way of having both a popularly elected leader and a Parliamentary system that is remotely similar to the present. (I am talking about the direct election of a Premier or Prime Minister here.) Any attempt to hybridise the Washington model and the Westminster model will necessarily struggle.

[Martini_Enfield]

@Noel_Prosequi

Thanks, Martini for the clarification. It improves your idea, but I remain to be convinced.

Suppose you have the system just as we have now in most respects, except that when the Premier resigns there is a popular election for his replacement. What happens in Cabinet thereafter? Darwinian processes kick in. Group dynamics elevate the “natural” leader (who would have been elected by the Cabinet in the current system) to a position of prominence, in competition with the elected leader, who may only have got the job because he is the slimiest self-promoter, or has the most telegenic haircut, or whatever. What can a popularly elected leader do if Cabinet does not want him, undermines him at every turn, and votes him down on everything?

I’m willing to take that chance. Especially since the State Government does far too much meddling (The new legislation on swimming pools being an excellent example). Making it harder for them to pass laws isn’t necessarily a bad thing, IMHO.

Then again, I also believe that the Governor should have the ability to refuse the Royal Assent to legislation (and yes, I know that centuries of precedent say that’s not possible, and arguably even the Queen herself can’t refuse it anymore). That power should be sparingly used (very sparingly), but it should be an option nonetheless.

In your proposed system, what happens if the popularly elected leader is a dud (either because he loses the confidence of Cabinet or Parliament)? Parliament cannot just replace him, otherwise they could do it the moment he came into office making the popular election pointless. What then is required is a system of recall (such as was used against Governor Gray in California prior to Gov. Schwarzenegger’s term). This is cumbersome and protracted. Again, a deceptively simple idea breeds unforseen complications.

I’d like to see a system of Recall implemented here, actually, to get rid of Members (and Premiers) who aren’t doing anything or are working contrary to their electorates wishes or interests.

I well understand why it might seem attractive to have arrangements for a popularly elected leader somehow fitted within our present system. For mine, though, the sense of satisfaction derived from having a direct say in the leader is illusory. Governments do not keep leaders for long who are albatrosses around their necks in the public eye. Look at all the recent NSW Premiers. Parties vote in as leaders the people who can win them elections, that is, the leaders the public wants.

The thing is, QLD (as I’m sure you know) has a long tradition of Premiers acting like they own the place- the Bjelke-Petersen years were before my time but I still feel there’s a legacy of “I’m the Premier so STFU and vote in favour of whatever I want if you know what’s good for you” in the State Parliament. Peter Beattie certainly didn’t have much trouble getting what he wanted and I’m not hearing much opposition to anything Anna Bligh comes up with either.

Perhaps, instead of a popular vote, a Recall system could be put in place so that if people dislike the new Premier enough, they could be effectively sacked and the Majority Party told “Try again, and don’t pick someone useless this time?”

I’m just deeply unhappy with the idea of someone I didn’t vote for- indeed, who wasn’t even put forth as a candidate outside their electorate- ending up as Premier of a State, with nothing anyone can do about it.

In short, I can’t see a satisfactory way of having both a popularly elected leader and a Parliamentary system that is remotely similar to the present. (I am talking about the direct election of a Premier or Prime Minister here.) Any attempt to hybridise the Washington model and the Westminster model will necessarily struggle.

I’d be game to try it, FWIW. Australia isn’t really a World Innovator in much these days so maybe successfully hyrbidising the two major Politican Systems would change that?